MOBAFire's final Season 13 Mini Guide Contest is here! Create or update guides for the 30 featured champions and compete for up to $200 in prizes! š
Ok for the 1st part, I'll just have to accept it. You understood what I mean, even if it's linguisticly( does this word even exist?) incorrect.
As for the second part, I just did not make myself clear. When the police is PRESENT and the blame is put on them, then they are partially responsible for sure. There are also the cases where the police should have been present but was not. But I did not mean to say that the police is responsible for everything even though they fulfill a very important role in the society by enforcing(or not enforcing) the law.
Your comparison is kind of loose I think.
As for the second part, I just did not make myself clear. When the police is PRESENT and the blame is put on them, then they are partially responsible for sure. There are also the cases where the police should have been present but was not. But I did not mean to say that the police is responsible for everything even though they fulfill a very important role in the society by enforcing(or not enforcing) the law.
Your comparison is kind of loose I think.
i think it's fair to generalize when a large amount of police officers are not good
of course it depends on what country you live in, but even 5% of 500k (around where mexico is according to wiki) is a large number of ****ty police officers (not to mention 5% is probably an extremely low estimate given wages and the drug industry in mexico), large enough that citizens start to generalize.
of course it depends on what country you live in, but even 5% of 500k (around where mexico is according to wiki) is a large number of ****ty police officers (not to mention 5% is probably an extremely low estimate given wages and the drug industry in mexico), large enough that citizens start to generalize.
Nighthawk wrote:
i think it's fair to generalize when a large amount of police officers are not good
Based on what statistic, exactly? Also, I think not. That's just stereotyping, but has no basis for fact on an individual level. It's like saying the majority of Chinese people are barbaric and uncivilised, so it's fair to generalize it to the whole Chinese population, which is completely fallacious. Sweeping generalizations have long been a fallacy.
Nighthawk wrote:
of course it depends on what country you live in, but even 5% of 500k (around where mexico is according to wiki) is a large number of ****ty police officers (not to mention 5% is probably an extremely low estimate given wages and the drug industry in mexico), large enough that citizens start to generalize.
5% is not a majority...
TROLLing1999 wrote:
Ok for the 1st part, I'll just have to accept it. You understood what I mean, even if it's linguisticly( does this word even exist?) incorrect.
As for the second part, I just did not make myself clear. When the police is PRESENT and the blame is put on them, then they are partially responsible for sure. There are also the cases where the police should have been present but was not. But I did not mean to say that the police is responsible for everything even though they fulfill a very important role in the society by enforcing(or not enforcing) the law.
Your comparison is kind of loose I think.
As for the second part, I just did not make myself clear. When the police is PRESENT and the blame is put on them, then they are partially responsible for sure. There are also the cases where the police should have been present but was not. But I did not mean to say that the police is responsible for everything even though they fulfill a very important role in the society by enforcing(or not enforcing) the law.
Your comparison is kind of loose I think.
Linguistically.
And it is not a necessity that I understood you, just look at Searz's response, he clearly thought you were talking about all police at one point. You might bare an unreasonable hatred to all who wear the badge for all I know. This is why using precise language is important, because very few people are mindreaders in any sense of the word. Taking for granted that I understand what you said is precisely what will cause misunderstandings.
But precisely by saying '**** the police', that sentence alone implicates police EVERYWHERE. There have been no parameters established nor restrictions in which I am to understand that you only mean the police that are present. The fact that you did not make yourself clear is precisely why your English was incorrect or imprecise.
The comparison isn't loose at all. It's a basic example for stereotyping and that's precisely what this is. I could pick any other stereotype and the argument would hold the same.
Nighthawk wrote:
i think it's fair to generalize when a large amount of police officers are not good
Yeah, and I think it's fair to call all Islam practitioners terrorists, cuz lets face it, a large amount of them are.
sirell wrote:
And it is not a necessity that I understood you, just look at Searz's response, he clearly thought you were talking about all police at one point. You might bare an unreasonable hatred to all who wear the badge for all I know. This is why using precise language is important, because very few people are mindreaders in any sense of the word. Taking for granted that I understand what you said is precisely what will cause misunderstandings.
Actually, I did understand that he wasn't trying to condemn them as a whole, but I wanted to make it clear (albeit failing at doing so) that his poor way of expressing himself resulted in him condemning the police as a whole.
It was fairly clear that he wasn't trying to condemn them as a whole, despite his messy arguments.
"Well, basically you should treat me like a prostitute." - TotalBiscuit
Another thing...I just read today that the district attorney(if this is the right term) did not charge Daren Wilson, the cop who shot an unarmned black(no offence or racistic remakr meant) american last summer in Ferguson. That was one of the most cruel and violent actiones I have ever seen/heard off, yet the state decided not to punish him. Why are governments so overproctetive about their police and refuse to judge objectively?
The thing that bothered me the most in this story was Obama's careless statements and any politicians who criticised harshly the well justified anti-racistic riots.
The thing that bothered me the most in this story was Obama's careless statements and any politicians who criticised harshly the well justified anti-racistic riots.
You need to log in before commenting.
No, that's incorrect (or at least imprecise) use of English. Unless you define it as such beforehand saying, 'this is what I mean when I write xyz...', then saying 'government' would, in fact, include every single public servant. Though in normal English usage, government tends to refer to those who are in power or pass legislation, but the point remains the same - you would be referring to every single one of those in parliament.
And if in the end of the day the blame is put on the police, then they definitely and apparently have a part of the responsibility for whatever happened as well.
That's not true either. That's like saying that as a Chinese person, I should take responsibility for what's happening in Hong Kong at the moment. You can't arbitrarily decide that the responsibility is suddenly widespread for everyone in a category. It just doesn't make logical moral sense to blame one person for the actions of another unless they are directly responsible for that person in some way (for example, a parent being responsible for their infant).